[Foundation-l] Re: New language policy

Thu Nov 24 05:22:40 UTC 2005

2005/11/24, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>:
> ilooy wrote:
> You can't have it both ways.  The whole issue of whether Andalusian is a
> separate language or a dialect IS a matter of politics.  How can you
> advocate like that and pretend it's not politics.

I don't pretend. I abhor politics, simple as that.
But I do maintain that Andalusian is distinct
as a language from Castilian.

> I don't by any means consider Ethnologue to be the last word on whether
> a way of speaking qualifies as a language, but I do accept them as the
> first word.  If we are to take a position contrary to theirs it should
> be based on some realistic evidence.

Andalusian was spoken in Andalusia long
before the Reconquest by Castile-Aragon.
The language was markedly different then
as was Gallego, Catalan, Asturian etc.
It remains distinct enough to qualify as
a language in it's own right just as the
other languages in the peninsula are.

> Sure, but we need to be convinced that it IS a language, and not just a
> dialect.

I can't convince you obviously, you seem to
have made up your mind and so have quite
a few who very vociferously want to deny
Andalusian its voice in Wikipedia. That's
just sad and a regrettable situation in my
opinion.

> Voting is a stupid way to decide these things.  On one side we
> have a group that is familiar with the "language", and which has the
> political will to see its interests advanced.  On the other side is a
> large group of people with no objective knowledge of the situation, and
> that would like to hear the other side of the argument.  They are
> prepared to wait until there are facts to work with.

So which side is it now... the one's who oppose?
Are they on the first group or second you mention...
Wait I think there must be a third, no maybe it was
sockpuppetry. ;-)

> >For example the rule that languages must
> >have an established standard written form,
> I don't see this as a requirement that needs to be interpreted too strictly

Well, as a matter of fact Andalusian does have
a standard of sorts which has been used for
a few years, just like other languages in the
Peninsula which are coming out from under
repression.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalidad_ling%C3%BC%C3%ADstica_andaluza#Curiosidad
"Recientemente se viene usando el sistema "NOA" (Norma Ortográfica
Andaluza) basada en el "andaluz estándar" para transcribir canciones
populares, flamenco, o cualquier otra ocasión en la que se quiera
reflejar de forma fidedigna el habla del pueblo andaluz."

> >it may give guidance in respect to Andalusian,
> >but it would also mean calling into question
> >some already started wikipedia languages.
> This could be a problem because it's difficult to get rid of a project
> once it's started, no matter how ridiculous it is.

Yes, I think so too, but by thinking of some
workable guidelines and a procedure which
would satisfy most of the situations, those
which may be problematic may be given
extra attention. An appeal may be put under
way if a language is refused, and a decision
made which would establish some sort of
precedent. I think we already have some
precedents with the Klingon and Toki Pona
situations, also the Balkan languages issue.

with regards,
Jay B.
[[User:ILVI]]

--
ilooy.gaon at gmail.com